16 Groups of 3

When FIFA first announced that the 2026 World Cup was being expanded to 48 teams, the plan was to have 16 groups of three and 80 games total.  That would've featured one European team in each group, eliminating the two-European-team groups that UEFA really doesn't like, and seen the top two teams in each group advancing to the knockout stage.  Those plans changed significantly after the 2022 World Cup and its outstanding final group day that included several thrilling sets of simultaneous matches.  The result was an updated format with 12 groups of four playing 104 total games and eight third-place finishers advancing to the knockout round.

There was some criticism to the groups-of-three format, primarily related to the uneven number of teams.  Without simultaneous games, it would've left the possibility of shenanigans regarding advancement.  It would also have created some unfair situations regarding rest.  Some teams would go an extended period between games, while others wouldn't start until much later in the tournament and have to play eight games in a much shorter period than teams who got more rest by playing earlier.  So, FIFA decided that groups of four were better.

Let's not kid ourselves about the fact that FIFA saw the dollar signs, too.  An expanded tournament already meant more games.  There were 64 games at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.  They were originally set to have 16 more than that in 2026.  Now, it'll be 40 additional games.  That's 40 additional sold out stadiums (or, 24 more than there otherwise would've been).  Don't think that was lost on them.

Changing back to groups of four, ultimately, was probably the right call.  But it fundamentally altered the way this World Cup would play out.  For starters, there will have to be four groups with two European teams.  That's something UEFA wanted to avoid.  That's the primary reason why Europe has 16 teams and no possibility of more.  The whole idea was one in each group, which is obviously impossible now. 

It also brings back the complicated math of a separate table ranking the third-place teams against each other.  There are 495 possible combinations of third-place teams advancing to the knockout round.  The six group winners scheduled to face a third-place team in the Round of 32 all have five possible opponents depending on those combinations.  Even the third-place teams have multiple possible opponents in the Round of 32 (except for Groups L & K, whose third-place finishers would only face the winner of the other should they advance).

This is nothing new for FIFA, of course.  But there's no denying that the straightforward two teams from each group advancing to the knockout round was easier for everyone.  Likewise, the third-place teams can go to any number of Round of 32 games, giving them varying days of rest, especially compared to their group-winning opponents.  (Although, some would argue that's a consequence of finishing third in your group.)

Just as significantly, it changed the seeding.  By only have 12 groups instead of 16, that knocks four teams from being in Pot 1 down to Pot 2.  Likewise, it knocks four teams from Pot 2 into Pot 3.  And, it, of course, adds a Pot 4, which includes the six teams that we still don't know.  Four of those six teams are European.  And two of those are Italy and Denmark!  If they do get in, that'll make for at least two extremely difficult groups!

The pots are set for the World Cup Draw on Friday.  The teams were seeded based on their FIFA World Rankings, and the pot breakdown ended up like this:

Pot 1: United States (co-host), Mexico (co-host), Canada (co-host), Spain (1), Argentina (2), France (3), England (4), Brazil (5), Portugal (6), Netherlands (7), Belgium (8), Germany (9)
Pot 2: Croatia (10), Morocco (11), Colombia (13), Uruguay (16), Switzerland (17), Japan (18), Senegal (19), Iran (20), South Korea (22), Ecuador (23), Austria (24), Australia (26)
Pot 3: Norway (29), Panama (30), Egypt (34), Algeria (35), Scotland (36), Paraguay (39), Tunisia (40), Ivory Coast (42), Uzbekistan (50), Qatar (51), Saudi Arabia (60), South Africa (61)
Pot 4: Jordan (66), Cape Verde (68), Ghana (72), Curacao (82), Haiti (84), New Zealand (86), UEFA 1, UEFA 2, UEFA 3, UEFA 4, FIFA Playoff 1, FIFA Playoff 2

We'll see what happens once the draw ceremony is complete, but there will be some potentially deep groups.  Which I guess was sort of the point.  While there will likely still be some blowouts should, say, Curacao end up in the same group as France, that will, theoretically, be mitigated by the better teams not being as spread out.  It also creates the potential for some extremely competitive matchups (just picking random teams from Pots 1 & 2, we could get, say, Colombia vs. England, in the group stage).

These pots are drastically different than what they would've been had they stuck with the original plan of 16 groups of three.  This is how those pots would've broken down:

Pot A: United States (co-host), Mexico (co-host), Canada (co-host), Spain, Argentina, France, England, Brazil, Portugal, Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Croatia, Morocco, Colombia, Uruguay
Pot B: Switzerland, Japan, Senegal, Iran, South Korea, Ecuador, Austria, Australia, Norway, Panama, Egypt, Algeria, Scotland, Paraguay, Tunisia, Ivory Coast
Pot C: Uzbekistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Jordan, Cape Verde, Ghana, Curacao, Haiti, New Zealand, UEFA 1, UEFA 2, UEFA 3, UEFA 4, FIFA Playoff 1, FIFA Playoff 2

Croatia, Morocco, Colombia and Uruguay obviously would've benefitted the most had they stuck with the 16-group format.  They would've been seeded in Pot 1 and avoided any of the other top teams until the knockout phase.  (Likewise, the other top teams would've avoided them.)  It also would've allowed the European teams to all be separated, with eight in Pot 1 and four each in Pots 2 & 3.  And there still would've been some good matchups with those European playoff teams (meaning potentially Italy and/or Denmark) automatically having to be put in groups with the non-European countries from Pot 1.

Would the groups in this format be as deep across the board as the 12 groups of four will?  Probably not.  But they would be more balanced.  That, ultimately, would've been the biggest benefit to sticking with 16 groups of three.  Although, the trade-off would've been some weaker groups with really only one strong team and potentially more blowouts, as well as the possibility of inconsequential final games.

I never entirely bought into that position, however.  With groups of three, teams would only be playing two group games.  And, with two teams from each group advancing, somebody playing in that final game would be guaranteed to have something to play for.  Even if the group winner (or last-place finisher) was already decided, that second spot in the knockout stage (or who'd be the group winner) would be at stake in the last game.

Ultimately, FIFA decided that 12 groups of four would be better than 16 groups of three.  And the draw promises to create multiple difficult groups.  Whether that's better or worse, we won't find out until the summer.  But, one thing's for sure.  It'll create a vastly different tournament than 16 groups of three would have.